Tories plan £12 Bn of savings

#1
#2
Already happening in the MOD, a recruitment freeze has been in place a few weeks now.
 

Alsacien

LE
Moderator
#3
beemer007 said:
From R4's Today Programee:

One academic said that could translate to the loss of 20,000 to 40,000 jobs.

Mr Cameron did not deny the cuts would result in some 40,000 fewer jobs in the public sector, but stressed that by not filling posts which become vacant "that means you save money without anyone losing their jobs".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ele...lic-sector-savings-could-cost-40000-jobs.html
Good, culling 400,000 would only be 50% of the additional public sector jobs Labour have added.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
Post election there should be a 3 month look at all aspects of government activity, identify core functions and from there core jobs -police, nurses, office wallahs in core areas. Core jobs are sacrosanct. The rest should be subject to a 10% cut in manning across the board this year, and 10% yearly thereafter for another 2 years. That would get rid of a lot more than 40,000 useless people. And that should apply to councils as well. You'd quickly find the diversity officers being bounced.

And then these supposedly bright, intelligent hardworking people that we're told the civil service is staffed by can go and find a real job adding value somewhere.

No recruitment into non-core except on a one in one out basis - end of job creation.
 
#5
A step in the right direction. If they keep this up, I might vote Conservative yet...
 
#8
40,000 is not enough.
10 times that won't be enough. Government spending will have to be cut by at least 25%. Anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
After that we need a massive cut in taxation otherwise there will be no growth.
The only way that there will be any meaningful growth in the UK is when people and business have money to spend. For several years now a disproportionate chunk of spending has been in the public sector, there is little wealth generation but instead some warped form of wealth re-distribution that has left the majority worse off than before.
UK PLC needs to be turned to profit and the only way to do that is massive spending cuts and equally large tax cuts. Otherwise the bank balance will just continue to go further and further into the red.
 
#9
Every February/March there is an obscene rush by our local council to spend their remaining budget on any old crap because they've already put in for more next year. This is mirrored across the entire public sector, costing the taxpayer billions. If the Tories could put an end to that, they could probably reduce income tax by a few pence.

Also, as has already been mentioned, we are frequently told by the 'stars' of the public sector that 'if they were in the Private Sector they would be earning a lot more money' - well, now's their opportunity to prove it.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
Let's just add a dose of reality here, people who work in the public sector often have a public service ethic, and they do shoite jobs for worse pay. However, that pay contributes to the local economy because they spend their pay in places called "shops", this in turn keeps the people who work in "shops" in work, and feeds into the macro economy.

Public sector workers also pay tax, national insurance, and pension contributions - it could be argued (facetiously I admit) that they are largely self employed - so they are not the spongers that you imagine them to be.

BTW, the armed forces are all public servants - the government of the day hasn't attempted to privatise them (but I wouldn't put it past Cameron's mob - after all they operate by the mantra "Public Bad, Private Good").

edited once for a comma
 
#13
Mr_Fingerz said:
Let's just add a dose of reality here, people who work in the public sector often have a public service ethic, and they do shoite jobs for worse pay. However, that pay contributes to the local economy because they spend their pay in places called "shops", this in turn keeps the people who work in "shops" in work, and feeds into the macro economy.

Public sector workers also pay tax, national insurance, and pension contributions - it could be argued (facetiously I admit) that they are largely self employed - so they are not the spongers that you imagine them to be.

BTW, the armed forces are all public servants - the government of the day hasn't attempted to privatise them (but I wouldn't put it past Cameron's mob - after all they operate by the mantra "Public
Bad, Private Good").

edited once for a comma
The argument isn't about how hard they work or how worth while their jobs are, its a simple matter of not being able to afford 5,800,000 public sector employee's.
They do not generate wealth, they merely absorb it from the remaining 24 million who work.
Yes they do spend their earnings but that doesn't discount the fact that every penny comes out of the private setor to pay for them.
We need a greater proportion of people to be generating wealth, not consuming it.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
Who say's that we can't afford nearly 6 million public servants? They pay tax, national insurance, and VAT on their purchases. Without them, the private sector couldn't fully exist.

How do you know that they don't generate wealth? They certainly facilitate (and indeed drive) the implementation of new technologies (taking biofuels as an example). Historically there have been examples of new technologies being invented in the public sector and taken on by the private (jet engines anyone).

i don't see how having a fifth of the working population in the public sector is a bad thing.

Before you ask, I run my own company.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
They can get rid of 100,000 - it won't make much of an impact on the unemployment figures, and it's cheaper to have them on the dole than it is to employ them with gold plated pensions; and they don't add value anyway, most of them working in non-jobs.

Re-jig the PFI stupidity and reduce that overhead.

Quangoes - there's a few that can be zapped straight away which could save us at least 2-3 billion per annum.

Pay the government borrowing back quicker - that's the entire MOD budget per annum we can save just by paying off Gordon's debts.

Get our money back from the banks as quick as possible too - those shares we own are pretty much all at the profit point now - in two years time, we might make enough on the sale of them to cover the loss the cnut made on gold bullion sales.

Put a pay cap on local government suits. Chief execs and suited council workers don't deserve over 100k per annum to do their jobs. Since when the fcuk has some 'highways dept suit' or council exec been worth more in pay than a Prime Minister, even if he is a complete throbber? No, that doesn't mena increasing Broon's pay, it means decreasing all the over-paid pen-pushers in our local town halls.

I reckon that with some judicial financial management, the Government can find somewhere in the region of £100 billion per annum savings, year on year with no appreciable loss of service. Keep in mind that we pay over £35 billion per annum just in interest payments on debt at this time.
 
#16
Mr_Fingerz said:
Who say's that we can't afford nearly 6 million public servants? They pay tax, national insurance, and VAT on their purchases. Without them, the private sector couldn't fully exist.

How do you know that they don't generate wealth? They certainly facilitate (and indeed drive) the implementation of new technologies (taking biofuels as an example). Historically there have been examples of new technologies being invented in the public sector and taken on by the private (jet engines anyone).

i don't see how having a fifth of the working population in the public sector is a bad thing.

Before you ask, I run my own company.
Jet engine was developed by a serving officer in the RAF (Sir Frank Whittle)? :?
 
#17
Mr_Fingerz said:
Who say's that we can't afford nearly 6 million public servants? They pay tax, national insurance, and VAT on their purchases. Without them, the private sector couldn't fully exist.
You are falling for Gordon Browns argument that the State and the Economy are the same thing.

If you cut the numbers of Civil Servants to 3 million, the extra 3 million wont simply stop spending, they will simply find new jobs in the wealth generating, effecient, private sector.

And everyone else can get their taxes reduced, meaning that they have more disposable income as well.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
Gold plated pensions? which planet are you living on? Army pensions after 22 years are better than most civil service and local government pensions.

Bear in mind that to get the best out of either scheme you have to have 40 years unbroken service. That screws lots of graduates and post-grads (they can't get the 40 years in).

It also screws women, because they have breaks for child-birth, tend to work in lower paying jobs and generally cannot do the 40 years. a gold plated 2/3rd of 7/8ths of fcuk all is still fcuk all.
 
#19
RoofRat said:
Mr_Fingerz said:
Who say's that we can't afford nearly 6 million public servants? They pay tax, national insurance, and VAT on their purchases. Without them, the private sector couldn't fully exist.

How do you know that they don't generate wealth? They certainly facilitate (and indeed drive) the implementation of new technologies (taking biofuels as an example). Historically there have been examples of new technologies being invented in the public sector and taken on by the private (jet engines anyone).

i don't see how having a fifth of the working population in the public sector is a bad thing.

Before you ask, I run my own company.
Jet engine was developed by a serving officer in the RAF (Sir Frank Whittle)? :?
Exactly, a public servant.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
Sooo, it's worth having millions of people sucking on the t!t of the taxpayer, because being employed by government means they also pay taxes. What that actually means is that once the PAYE and NI is taken into account, the cost of employing them is slightly less to the rest of us, so it's worth paying for them anyway.

I disagree. It's cheaper to have them on the dole for far less cost than employ people in non-jobs. When they are on the dole for a bit, they will be either be forced to go and get jobs in the private sector (that means NO wage cost to government at all, and a PAYE and NI take to boot), or they can stay on the dole, still cheaper than the state employing them.

Don't know where you learned maths, but it's wrong.
 

Top